Yip Man's curriculum changes

[LFJ]

you dismiss a counter argument with the "strategy" of WSLVT-PB argument.

I have never mentioned PB's name if not to counter your strawman about his VT.

Hence the comment regarding WSLVT-PB.

A strawman.

Really this entire debate could possibly be solved, even if it was simply people saying "okay I guess we'll just agree to disagree" if you would simply explain what this "strategy" is.

I have explained it, here and elsewhere, to you directly, 1,000's of times. Just like I have dismantled your strawman repeatedly, almost every week. And you keep coming back with it.

You googled info to tell me and others from my lineage that we're wrong in the explanation of the strategy of our own system which you haven't the slightest understanding of yourself.

I don't think I'm going to attempt it with you again, just to have you google and tell me I'm wrong, and a week later once again tell me I haven't explained it yet.

 

[Nobody Important]

By faulty deduction. This conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The LDBG is said to go back further in history, but we don't have verifiable evidence of that.

Not being able to trace it back further doesn't justify the conclusion that LGC either invented the pole method, or the VT boxing method clearly based on it.

All we can say is that he is the first verifiable ancestor of the LBDG.

As far as VT, the furthest we can go is LJ.

The rest is folktale and guessing.



A story isn't determined to be true based on how realistic it sounds. A truth claim requires verifiable evidence.

Legends aren't valid evidence unless they can be substantiated or lead to solid facts.



Don't forget, most importantly, it is also identical in theory and application.

You're the one making the premise, not me, I just pointed out your claim.

True, evidence is required, but you need to start somewhere, and when something seems plausible it's only logical to try & prove or disprove. At this point we only have possibility with no evidence to counter probability. There is no evidence either way, so until it is debunked credibly, it should be treated as plausible.

I don't see why it would be different, it's Wing Chun. The only aspects of the Hung Kuen Wing Chun to be altered are the knives (by Lam Guei Chung's own altering) and the Arrow Palm set, which has taken on the characteristics of Hung Kuen proper via Lam Sai Wing altering it. He also altered LDBK by blending it with 8 Diagram Pole. To be fair that video is a reworking by Pavel Mavek's group. No one knows what that art actually looks like any more. I'm sure if it was blended with something else it would look ever more different.

 

[LFJ]

We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.)

This is off-topic but again you're attempting to speak of something with which you have 0 experience or knowledge.

There are many systems shared between Shaolin and Daoist lineages. It's the martial arts and how they are spread around China. Religions don't create barriers between them. All the styles around the mountainous area of Shaolin share the recognizably distinct flavor of the region and ultimately share the same origin, including Muslim arts.

Btw, this is found on a stele in the Shaolin Monastery. It shows 3 faces in 1, Buddhism, Daoism, & Confucianism.

 

[LFJ]

You're the one making the premise, not me, I just pointed out your claim.

And you're the one making the conclusion which I never claimed and which doesn't follow from the premise.

There is no evidence either way, so until it is debunked credibly, it should be treated as plausible.

There is evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having been based on LDBG.

There is no evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having come from a preexisting base style and reworked to align with the LDBG.

Until the latter comes up with something solid, only the former is based on evidence, and therefore most likely from the standpoint of currently observable facts.

To be fair that video is a reworking by Pavel Mavek's group. No one knows what that art actually looks like any more.

I posted a video of it from 1949.

 

[Nobody Important]

And you're the one making the conclusion which I never claimed and which doesn't follow from the premise.



There is evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having been based on LDBG.

There is no evidence to support the theory of VT boxing having come from a preexisting base style and reworked to align with the LDBG.

Until the latter comes up with something solid, only the former is based on evidence, and therefore most likely from the current standpoint of observable facts.



I posted a video of it from 1949.

Are you not the one making the claim that WC is based on the pole? My conclusion is based on the fact that you believe it to be true, you go on to state that there is evidence to support in via the video of the HK pole form. Seems like a double standard to call me out on something you are adamantly supporting but deny me to say you support.

Yes, the video from 1949 is an old WFH movie starring a Tibetan White Crane master. The sequence is the same, though we don't know for certain if there was more. PM's video is based on that one extrapolated sequence. The same sequence is also in the Tibetan White Crane 13 Spear Pole + more.

 

[Juany118]

I have never mentioned PB's name if not to counter your strawman about his VT.



A strawman.



I have explained it, here and elsewhere, to you directly, 1,000's of times. Just like I have dismantled your strawman repeatedly, almost every week. And you keep coming back with it.

You googled info to tell me and others from my lineage that we're wrong in the explanation of the strategy of our own system which you haven't the slightest understanding of yourself.

I don't think I'm going to attempt it with you again, just to have you google and tell me I'm wrong, and a week later once again tell me I haven't explained it yet.

First you dont have to say "I study PB's version" explicitly when you refer to every other well known WSL student mentioned as "okay but modified" at best or "doesn't truly understand" at worst. It also seemed logical to conclude this because of the discussion where you vigorously defended the amount of time PB spent personally training with WSL and the outright anger you had when someone proposed a certain reason for PB's VT being different than others. That out of the way

Well I am not the only one who missed it when you detailed the strategy because I am not the only one here who isn't under your "school of thought" who still asks for clarification.

In reference to your statement of the quote I posted, two things. I assume, since we are talking strategy, that you are referring to the "impose your will" on the opponent which is the only thing I ever contradicted you on. I did this not because I searched for it but because I knew that quote already. While my study with WSL via GL was brief (comparatively) and I have purged more than a bit from my memory banks as a consequence of studying TWC, one thing always stuck with me. Being told that quote by my Sifu to add to one of GL's axioms "why should I oppose his first action? Do not oppose his action.". Now before you said GL was "okay" but that he modified stuff. Who knows but that was why. This seemed to be counter to attempting to "impose" oneself.

If this is the strategy you speak of here, "impose your will on the opponent" then I don't see how anything is contradicted in CG. There is a saying you see in many a conversation or interview about Southern Praying Mantis, in general, which says, "if your enemy comes to your door make him stay but if he tries to flee chase him down.". That seems very much like "imposition" to me.

There are differences between WC as I know it and CG as well no doubt. I am not even categorically saying that CG had an impact on WC. All I am saying is, something similar to you actually because we actually agree on a couple things. There is no evidence for a Southern Shaolin Temple. Simple temple ruins do not = that. Origin myths that seem virtually copied from another style are also suspicious. So we are left looking for what the real story is.

I am genuinely interested in what you mean by the "strategy" being so different as to make all apparent similarities impossible. To understand that I need to know what you speak of. Maybe it will trigger a memory that is over 15 years old and buried so I could stop doing certain things that weren't strictly TWC? Maybe I'll say, "well from that perspective I can see the point but it's not strictly relevant to the perspective of TWC." Maybe I'll even say "he's right, time to look elsewhere." I don't know what the result will be but I'll never know without some elaboration on the strategy that is the crux of this particular issue atm

 

[KPM]

List of the 22 short "forms" taught before Sil Lim Tao in non-Yip Man lineages:

1. Buddha Palm
2. Phoenix Eye Hammer
3. Tiger Tail Hammer
4. Pheasant Kick
5. Dragon Pearl
6. Small Heun Sao
7. Big Heun Sao
8. Three War Fist (Sanchin)
9. Plowing Bridge
10. Bong and Backfist
11. Po Pai Jeung Exercise
12. Obstruct and Prop
13. Hook and Slice
14. Fish Flip
15. Controlling Bridge
16. Crane Wing
17. Evade and Biu Sao
18. Double Dragon
19. Bowing Horse Hammer
20. Three Palms
21. Pulling Eight
22. Suppressing Tiger

A student would traditionally spend about a month on each short form. They wouldn't learn Sil Lim Tao until after all 22 were perfect. Each short form is usually 5-10 moves in length. Some of them mimic parts of Sil Lim Tao.

This is the 22 Point Ku Lo system. It is a spin off of Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun....a "public" version so to speak. And these are specifically the translations used by John Fung, who teaches this system as well as Tai Chi in Australia. There is said to have been some San Sik that Ip Man taught in Foshan and dropped when he got to Hong Kong. But this is not it. And this was never taught as a preliminary to the standard 3 forms in any system. The 22 point system as well as its root the Pin Sun system was a stand alone independent system. Sum Nung/Yuen Kay Shan WCK has 12 San Sik taught before a student starts the Siu Nim Tao form. But these 12 San Sik were added by Sum Nung based on his training before meeting Yuen Kay Shan.

 

[wckf92]

There is nothing to prove these people existed, and there was never historically a "Southern Shaolin Monastery" either.

The furthest back we can prove real people for the VT boxing method is to Leung Jan, and for the LDBG pole method is to Lam Geui-Chung, both from the early 19th century

Interesting.
Did these two know each other?

 

[KPM]

Here is a question? Why does their need to be A proto-WC? The more I look at things there was no single source. Now maybe I am projecting something from FMA scholarship here. While tradition states there is a "mother art" (aka proto-art) when you really look at it this is impossible due to circumstances. I think the same thing would be true here. You MAY be able to go back and find an art that is a common ancestor for WC and Hakka related arts from the Guangdong area with similar techniques (Baak Mei, various Southern Mantis), and even principles. Even TWC is said to perhaps be related to Hakka MAs because of the Hakka migrations resulting in Hakka being in both Fujian and Guangdong. Here is a Hakka shot

But did Hakka evolve entirely independently or was it influenced by the fact that Hakka tended to join the military due to living in mountains where farming prospects weren't that great?

Then you have what appears to be some elements related to "old"/village Hung Kuen, in the pole form, possibly elements of FWC as well. It seems to me that, in this case, searching for a single "proto-art" is search for a unicorn. That such a thing doesn't exist because WC appears to be an amalgam, with some refinement, of many arts and these arts in turn are likely amalgams, with refinement, of other arts. /Shrug

I agree with everything you wrote! But "proto-Wing Chun" would have been the first attempt at that amalgamation of various styles. Then it would have evolved and developed with time. Or it might have been something like an early form of White Crane that gradually shifted emphasis and added other things to become Wing Chun. So the "proto-Wing Chun" may have been a gradually evolving and developing thing until it gained an separate identity of its own.

 

[LFJ]

Are you not the one making the claim that WC is based on the pole? My conclusion is based on the fact that you believe it to be true,

Your conclusion still doesn't follow from that.

That we can verify earlier ancestors does not mean the earliest guy we can find was the founder or that he was involved in created VT boxing based on the pole method he trained.

Yes, the video from 1949 is an old WFH movie starring a Tibetan White Crane master. The sequence is the same, though we don't know for certain if there was more.

So, once again, based on currently observable facts, it is practically indistinguishable from YMVT pole in form, and identical in theory and application.

 

[LFJ]

First you dont have to say "I study PB's version" explicitly when you refer to every other well known WSL student mentioned as "okay but modified" at best or "doesn't truly understand" at worst.

You can't just make things up. That is the definition of a strawman.

the discussion where you vigorously defended the amount of time PB spent personally training with WSL

You mean shared the facts.

and the outright anger you had when someone proposed a certain reason for PB's VT being different than others.

You mean the disparaging comments you made about his handicap, which were demonstrated to be false.

In reference to your statement of the quote I posted, two things. I assume, since we are talking strategy, that you are referring to the "impose your will" on the opponent which is the only thing I ever contradicted you on.

Because you don't know VT. Nor do you know SPM, which is a reactive style.

While my study with WSL via GL was brief (comparatively)

Didn't even get passed SNT.

Now before you said GL was "okay" but that he modified stuff. Who knows but that was why. This seemed to be counter to attempting to "impose" oneself.

If so, you have your reason why.

If this is the strategy you speak of here, "impose your will on the opponent" then I don't see how anything is contradicted in CG.

Because you don't know how either VT or SPM function, yet are attempting a comparison from ignorance.

 

[wckf92]

@LFJ
So were the knives equally important in the conception of VT as the pole? Around the same time?

 

[KPM]

YM taught only a few students the system. Why would he explain it to a magazine?

---No, the better question is "why wouldn't he?????" Why would it be a secret? Why would he purposefully write an incorrect history for all posterity? Why would he not teach this openly to ALL of his students and not just WSL? I've said this before....you really need to examine the logic you have been using. None of it adds up!


It is common knowledge to those who know the system. You haven't heard about it because you haven't studied the system.

---THE system being WSLVT, of course!!! Again, as I said before, if your theory doesn't apply to ALL Wing Chun and can only be explained within WSLVT....that should be a huge red flag that there is something wrong with the theory!



It seems not, but that's irrelevant if as you say some of these went on without the weapon base.

---Oh, it is very relevant! See my comment above!


If the weapons were not taught, the weapon theory wouldn't be taught, and over time it's conceivable that the boxing method would evolve in a different direction without the weapons to guide it.

---So let me get this straight. You believe that there is no way that an empty hand method could be adapted or evolved to incorporate weapons concepts, but that a weapons-based empty hand method CAN change or evolve to lose the weapons concepts? Again, you really need to examine your logic!



No angulations are removed. It's a linear method.

---Did you watch the videos you posted????



That's a guess without supporting evidence.

---Its just as much a guess as your theory, and actually has more supporting evidence! We've been over this already.



Other systems appear to be doing something very different as far as boxing methods. As I said, without the weapon theory, the boxing method is free and likely to evolve into something else, which seems to be the case.

---So let me get this straight. You believe that the origin of all Wing Chun was the weapons, but that ONLY WSLVT has retained this weapon emphasis and all other versions of Wing Chun...both Hong Kong and Mainland versions....have lost or evolved away from this weapons theory boxing method?? I've got one word for you....."plausibility."



It is the fact that it preexisted AND remains unchanged between the preexisting style and YMVT.

---IF that were consistent within ALL YMVT....or better yet ALL Wing Chun in general you would have a better argument. But it seems to apply only to WSLVT. And I already pointed out that it wouldn't matter whether it was the exact same LDBK form or not. It still does not rule out the idea of an existing empty hand method being "evolved" and changed by the addition of weapons concepts.



You can say a preexisting base style was readjusted to match the pole, but you need to demonstrate that.

---And you would need to demonstrate the opposite! All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all. Again, examine your logic!



This is a theory without evidence.

---Just as yours is a theory without evidence.



Because there is no evidence to support that theory.

---Just as much as you have to support yours!



My theory is a conclusion based on solid evidence. Your theory is a guess without evidence.

---Please! You haven't provided any solid evidence other than showing a LDBK form from Hung Kuen that looks like WSL's pole form and some correlation between the LDBK and the empty hands. How that correlation came to be is still a matter of conjecture that could go either way.

---Here's another theory for you.....Ip Man seems to have taught different pole forms at different times of his career. So he couldn't have know this Hung Kuen version of the LDBK from the beginning. So it couldn't have been what he learned from Chan Wah Shun/Ng Chung So. So it couldn't have been the base for the entire system from the beginning. It could very well be that either Ip Man or WSL himself picked up this version of the pole later on and then worked to refine the empty hands understanding to match weapons theory as closely as possible. This would explain why you only see this correlation between the two in WSLVT. You cannot disprove this theory unless you can show another version of Wing Chun that has this close correlation between pole and empty hands and that also teaches that the empty hands were derived from the pole.


If you want to propose a possible preexisting base style, you must support it with solid evidence. There is none.

---There is just a much evidence for a older version of White Crane being a base style as you have provided for that LDBK form being the base style. And you still haven't said who the main teacher of this theory is within the WSL lineage. I acknowledge that you are a pretty smart guy. But in this case you seem willing to suspend good logic and judgment and accept this theory as fact rather than as just an interesting possibility. That implies someone with some clout is teaching this. So again, who is it?

 

[KPM]

Left Handed 6 1/2 Point Pole of Lam Guei Chung. The story behind it is that it was taught by Ji Sim to the Opera performers. Same story as Leung Lam Kwai learning it from Ji Sim and passing it on to Wong Wa Bo. It is also said to be orthodox Siu Lam (Fut Gar) and that it was paired with Jin Jeung (aka: Heat Penetrating Palm & Post Fist) and Hang Yuet Seung Dao, all related to what some consider the last art to come out of Siu Lam, White Crane. It is nearly identical to Yuen family pole, minus a few things. Looks similar to Yip Man and Kulo 3 1/2 point pole as well.

This is actually more similar to Tang Yik pole than it is to WSL's pole. But very short.

 

[Juany118]

I agree with everything you wrote! But "proto-Wing Chun" would have been the first attempt at that amalgamation of various styles. Then it would have evolved and developed with time. Or it might have been something like an early form of White Crane that gradually shifted emphasis and added other things to become Wing Chun. So the "proto-Wing Chun" may have been a gradually evolving and developing thing until it gained an separate identity of its own.

Just wanted to clarify. I just realized that here, an a couple other places I typed FWC but my phone's autocorrect made it TWC, since I obviously type that more often

I guess I am uncertain as to what degree such a state of Flux existed because I am actually in agreement with what I THINK LFJ is saying, namely that WC is a 19th Century construct and it started getting taught to the heads of many lineages in that same Century. That's not a lot of time, imo, for there to be a not fully formed "proto-art" to exist and evolve.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I totally agree that there is a beginning to everything, and the scholarship should be done to discover those beginnings. That is not the same as saying there is a single "alpha", or proto-art.

The mental artifacts man creates, whether a martial art, a science, literature, painting etc are almost always influenced by other things. Nothing evolves in an vacuum. So if you have an art like WC, that appears to have Hakka and non-Hakka influences how can one say that there is a single "Alpha".

I am not saying we can't say "okay there's a bit of Mantis, here is a bit of Baak Mei, there is a bit of FWC, there is a bit of "old"/village HK." The thing is though that these each take us in different directions. We maybe can see in one some Shaolin influence, but then again you look at something else and it appears related to Taoist arts (since Shaolin is Buddhist the two must be different sources.) Then maybe some influence from the more "straight ahead" arts taught to the Imperial Army. Then you have the effects of migrating through various regions. As an example, over time the Hakka, who used to be the ruling Han, migrated from the north to the south in waves, usually triggered by warfare and upheaval.

All I am saying is that there appears to be a strong possibility that in the end we see a history that looks like a family tree in reverse. The art you are looking at, in this case WC, is the "Omega". As we go back into the past the tree expands to multiple sources, rather than narrowing to one. It is interesting indeed to try and figure out all the possible twists and turns. All I am saying is that if we insist on looking for a single "Alpha" we blind ourselves to other possibilities.

Sorry, the would be history teacher has kicked in full force due to the turn this thread took

This starts to have a lot in common with linguistic historical research.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

SPM and other Hakka styles function similarly. But they are all contradictory to VT theory and application.

Can you outline some of those differences briefly? I've picked up a few bits of VT strategy/tactics in discussions, but I'm entirely unfamiliar with SPM.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This it what defines the system.

I've doubted your experience in WC, but I'm beginning to think you're not even a real MAist.



Strawman.



We've discussed it a thousand times before.



Not only isn't met, but is directly contradicted!

Since you have no experience in VT or SPM, you should stop googling for similarities when you understand neither.

It has been discussed many times, but I don't recall ever seeing an answer to requests for clarification. Just saying "strategy and tactics" is more vague than you appear to think. If I refer to the strategy & tactics of NGA without spelling them out, it's unlikely another practitioner - even a senior instructor - would know precisely what I'm referring to unless I am explicit. That's not because of a lack of understanding but because there's no formal, universal expression of them. Each instructor teaches them with different words, and some teach them implicitly, rather than explicitly.

So, when someone doesnt understand what you mean, it may be because your experience is different, and your words mean something different to them than you intend.

 

[LFJ]

Why would he purposefully write an incorrect history for all posterity?

Why would anyone put much stock in fairytales?

not just WSL?

Juany's strawman?

---THE system being WSLVT, of course!!!

Juany's strawman if you add PB's name.

---So let me get this straight. You believe that there is no way that an empty hand method could be adapted or evolved to incorporate weapons concepts, but that a weapons-based empty hand method CAN change or evolve to lose the weapons concepts?

No. But there is no evidence of the first theory in the case of VT.

A rudderless boxing method could change course in any direction.

---Its just as much a guess as your theory, and actually has more supporting evidence! We've been over this already.

It has 0 evidence.

---So let me get this straight. You believe that the origin of all Wing Chun was the weapons, but that ONLY WSLVT has retained this weapon emphasis and all other versions of Wing Chun...both Hong Kong and Mainland versions....have lost or evolved away from this weapons theory boxing method??

I can only speak about YMVT. I can't tell you what happened over more than 100 years in other lineages, but that they are completely different systems as they exist today.

I already pointed out that it wouldn't matter whether it was the exact same LDBK form or not. It still does not rule out the idea of an existing empty hand method being "evolved" and changed by the addition of weapons concepts.

You need to present evidence if you are going to propose this theory.

---And you would need to demonstrate the opposite! All you can show is correlation, and that does not prove origins at all. Again, examine your logic!

Correlation cannot even be demonstrated for the alternative theory.

This is a theory without evidence.

---Just as yours is a theory without evidence.

LDBG from HSHK is solid supporting evidence. It is not proof that VT boxing came from it, but that is supporting evidence in that direction, and is in fact proof that it wasn't adapted to VT.

Because there is no evidence to support that theory.

---Just as much as you have to support yours!

You have presented nothing but guesses based on what you think is likely.

---Here's another theory for you.....Ip Man seems to have taught different pole forms at different times of his career. So he couldn't have know this Hung Kuen version of the LDBK from the beginning. So it couldn't have been what he learned from Chan Wah Shun/Ng Chung So. So it couldn't have been the base for the entire system from the beginning.

False, and ignorance of the pole method behind the forms.

---There is just a much evidence for a older version of White Crane being a base style as you have provided for that LDBK form being the base style.

False. You have not shown even the slightest relationship between White Crane and VT. They are contradictory systems with very few superficial elements between them.

VT boxing and LDBG match completely at every level.

And you still haven't said who the main teacher of this theory is within the WSL lineage.

There is no main teacher under WSL.

in this case you seem willing to suspend good logic and judgment and accept this theory as fact rather than as just an interesting possibility. That implies someone with some clout is teaching this.

I have not written an origin story and claimed it as fact. I have only presented the observable facts as they currently stand, and they show VT boxing matching weapons that came before.

I have explained in detail why I find this most convincing, and it is wholly through technical analysis and historical fact. I never once made an Appeal to Authority, thank you very much!

 

[LFJ]

Interesting.
Did these two know each other?

It would not be surprising. It is conceivable that the two of them developed a boxing method distinct from the various neighboring styles of the time, borrowing simple elements like YJKYM to start from, but ultimately coming up with a very different style that contradicts all the others.

It would take more work to verify the relationship they had, if indeed any. It could well have been generations before them, but since the history is not recorded beyond that point, we can't form a definitive origin story. And I am not making any such claim.

@LFJ
So were the knives equally important in the conception of VT as the pole? Around the same time?

Equally important, yes, but not equally integrated. The strategy between knives and boxing are opposite, for good reason. BJ is pretty much all knife thinking, though.

What is integrated into the core of VT boxing from the knives is the tactical guidelines that make the "two pole" boxing method effective.

The pole method works because it is long range and the opponent only has one pole, too. Ballistically displace their pole and blast into the opening. End of fight. That's the saying, the pole doesn't make a second sound.

But, you can't just run in like that when short range boxing someone also with "two weapons". You may remove one, but the other can still hit you. So, to make the "two pole" boxing method effective, isolation principles from the knives are introduced, greatly increasing our odds as we now have at least twice as many weapons as the opponent.